Talking Not Always Best Strategy, Obama

The New Republic: Non-Engagement Can Sometimes Be The Wisest And Most Diplomatic Course

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Lee Smith.

---

Barack Obama's professed willingness to sit down with dictators may have elicited jeers from the Hillary Clinton campaign, but in recent months the idea has found broad support in the mainstream of center-left opinion. After all, engaging Middle East rivals was one of the recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, and now the thread has been picked up by Washington think tanks like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the International Crisis Group, and the New America Foundation, as well as a number of journalists and analysts who argue that it's time to bring in everyone that the Bush administration left out in the cold. In particular, Syria seems to have won the attention of the pro-engagement crowd, like Obama adviser Robert Malley, who has said that Washington's dealings with Damascus "undoubtedly can have a significant impact on each" aspect of U.S. Middle East policy -- from Iraq and Iran, to Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

However, the present situation in Syria shows the folly of Obama's idea. First, as Syrian President Bashar al-Asad's unctuous welcome of Nancy Pelosi a year ago proves, for the U.S. simply to talk to its enemy was a victory of a type for Syria, and one that worked against the U.S.'s larger strategic goals. And secondly, the situation in Syria indicates that sometimes isolating an enemy can be the smartest and most effective diplomatic solution -- by not alienating our allies or undermining a precarious multilateral strategy of non-engagement.

When Pelosi visited Damascus last spring, her main purpose was to thumb her nose at the White House by demonstrating that there was no harm merely chatting with the solicitious, clearly delighted Asad. And yet the unintended consequence of her overture, as Syrian dissidents had warned, was that Asad clamped down on opposition figures, seemingly availing himself of the apparently relaxed U.S. pressure. The same happened when Arlen Specter visited this past winter and Syria arrested two dissidents within 48 hours of the Pennsylvania senator's trip.

The Bush administration itself, of course, also knows what it's like to get played by Asad. After a visit to Damascus in 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell boasted that he'd gotten Asad to close the local offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, only to later discover that they were still open for business. The administration's last official mission to Syria was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's trip in January 2005, when one of the main topics of interest was political tension in Lebanon. Weeks later, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others were killed in a massive car bomb explosion in downtown Beirut. The next day, Washington recalled its ambassador, a post that has been vacant ever since.

So, it was not doctrinaire anti-diplomatic tendencies that led the Bush administration to curtail relations with Syria. The administration's outreach had done nothing to alter Syria's behavior, and to keep talking would merely demoralize anxious American allies in Lebanon, which has become one of the U.S.'s most valuable assets. Not only has Lebanon been a key venue for taking on Iran by facing down its proxy, Hezbollah, but the pro-Western government there led by Christians, Druze, and moderate Sunnis represented precisely the sort of Middle East the administration's democracy advocates had envisioned. An Obama White House may have no interest in "regional transformation," but the delicate diplomacy required to support Lebanon still represents an almost insurmountable barrier if it chooses the road to Damascus.

President Obama may be surprised to discover that Bush's Lebanon policy is a model of multilateral consensus, formed in partnership with allies like France and regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Still, Washington is clearly the senior partner, and engaging Syria at this point would mean shaking the cornerstone of a coalition built on international law, including a string of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and a U.N. tribunal established to try Hariri's murderers.

More than three years after the assassination of the former Prime Minister, the tribunal is finally ready to go and may begin as early as early summer at the Hague. Judges have been selected, and if, as expected, members of the Syrian regime are indicted, there is a mechanism for trying suspects in absentia. According to the U.N.'s chief legal counsel, Nicolas Michel, "There is no way it can be halted."

Of course, there is one way Bashar al-Asad might be spared the Milosevic treatment, and that's with a diplomatic initiative from the White House. "Washington's friends and enemies in the Middle East would understand engagement with the Asad regime as the end of U.S. commitment to the tribunal," says David Schenker, Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and previously the office of the Secretary of Defense's Levant country director. "It's difficult to imagine the White House opening a dialogue with Damascus with international indictments pending."

The one U.S. ally that might welcome an opening to Syria is Israel. Since peace talks with Mahmoud Abbas are stalled, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be sorely tempted to try the Syrian track, as his Defense Minister and Labor Party rival Ehud Barak recommends. The problem is that Asad's ostensible precondition is the return of the Golan Heights, which neither the present Israeli government nor any foreseeable one is able to deal away. Therefore, Israel, Syria, and the U.S. all understand that Asad's real price is a so-called "grand bargain" from the Americans.

The Syrians, for their part, aren't giving anything away, even at the behest of a White House eager to sit down with them. Let's say, hypothetically, that Obama could arrange to tank the Hariri tribunal in exchange for Asad agreeing to leave Lebanon alone. The problem is that Syria cannot afford to abandon its claims on its smaller neighbor and so it wants the whole package: protection from the tribunal and hegemony in Lebanon. "He wants more than anyone can deliver," says Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian dissident now living in Washington, "and he has nothing to offer."

Bashar has to have Beirut. It is a cash cow for a financially strapped Syrian regime desperately squeezing the last drops out of its oil revenue. But most importantly, Syria needs to maintain an open front against Israel, and since it dares not risk war on its own border from the Golan, it fights instead via Hezbollah on Lebanon's border. Without that front in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Damascus cannot project power in the region.

Syria's demands then are necessarily maximalist -- no to the tribunal, yes to a renewed role in Lebanon, including an open front on the Israeli border -- and thus unacceptable to the international community, including, presumably, an Obama administration. The question is whether a new president would do the math before rushing off to engage Damascus. The Bush White House, perhaps having foreseen this possibility, has built in checks that will be difficult for the next President to override.

Executive orders signed by President Bush have targeted several figures with ties to the regime, including Rami Makhlouf, Asad's cousin and a key fixer for anyone who wants to make money in Syria. Their American assets have been frozen, and by prohibiting U.S. firms and individuals from taking their business, the White House hopes also to encourage international players to isolate Syria financially. Last month, the Treasury Department designated four members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq as affiliated with the regime, leaving any U.S. president who wants to chat with Damascus the more difficult task of explaining why he wants to engage bin Laden's peers. Finally, there's the 2004 Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. While Congress has very little say in foreign policy, the bill's sanctions against Damascus embody the kind of broad bipartisan agreement that would ostensibly distinguish an Obama presidency, and a renewed policy of engagement could be seen as the new president thumbing his nose at that consensus.

An Obama campaign that preaches multilateralism but intends to engage Syria is going to find itself crossing those same parties most prominent in their opposition to Bush in Iraq, including France, the U.N., and Sunni Arabs, along with many institutions within his own government. In short, Obama will have shown that he had learned too little from either Bush's successes or errors in making Middle East policy.

In the immediate future, Syria, has no other strategy except to wait and hope that a President Obama is just itching to reach out to them, merely to prove that he is smarter than George Bush.

[glenncinca-2009]

Obama has an ego as soaring as his rhetoric. Does he really think that he can win over Iran''s Amentaljob or Syria''s Asad by simply having a polite conversation with those leaders? Perhaps he fancies himself as someone who could have stopped the Third Reich from its goals of world domination if only he had been born 60 years earlier and had had a to chance to sit down for a chat with Adolph Hitler. Maybe some vodka, caviar, and pleasant discourse with Stalin could have prevented the Cold War, or some tea with Mao could have led to a democratic China. No, fanatical despots are all the same when it comes to power. The only thing they understand is the power and determination of the enemy; appeasement simply does not work, as we all know from our history books. They view that as a weakness. Obama would be America''s achilles heel.

[mspiff]

No kidding, big ego, naive, the hall ball of was. An Obama Presidency would put this country in harm''s way. And Pelosi was such a fool.

I''m with Mrs. Clinton - I hope she can win an uphill battle against the uber-liberal press.

[taddles-2009]

"No kidding, big ego, naive, the hall ball of was. An Obama Presidency would put this country in harm''''s way. And Pelosi was such a fool.

Posted by mspiff at 05:09 PM : Apr 09, 2008"


Huh, so all the think tanks who have since come to the conclusion that the Bush policy of "ignore them" has pretty much failed miserably, they are the idiots and you are the smart one. We''ll just have to consult with you more often then won''t we.

[inventagod]

CBS allows the right wing a free pulpit...

Might be nice if a left wing wacko got a column here too...

[glenncinca-2009]

George Bush fully engaged with Vladimir Putin, and conducted personal diplomacy. Visits to W''s ranch, visits to Vlad''s dacha, lots of vodka, caviar, barbecues, and beer. More comradery and conversation than you can shake a stick at. Look at where that got us... is Russia any more "free", any less militarized, any more of an ally, any less paranoid than it was before all of that began? NO! Nothing changed! The biggest change with that country occurred when Reagan built up our military and bankrupted the Soviet Union when they couldn''t match our strength. His most significant "conversation" with Gorbachev when he stood in West Berlin and told him to "tear down that wall". The rest is history. Strength begets results. Tea and crumpets begets a trip to the toilet and little else.

[irliberal]

The headline might as well have read "Pope picks nose" or "SinginRick finds image of Jesus in morning pancake".

WHERE IS BIN LADEN? That has really been the only relevant question that needs asking since the invasion of Afghanistan.

Seven years of war. Civil rights breached by our commander in chief. Internationally recognized torture sanctioned by the White House. Two invaded and currently occupied countries. Hundreds of thousands dead, including 4000 American soldiers. Billions of our tax dollars spent, and yes, are still being spent to this very moment.

Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, is now an occupied country which will implode when we get out of it, whether that happens one, two, ten or five hundred years from now. A society that CHOOSES to be ruled by religion cannot become a democracy; it can only be a theocracy with voting cards.

Bin Laden still lives. The mastermind of 9/11 still walks free.

The one, simple word for this is: failure. No amount of deception, indignation or wailing by republicons can change these facts.

Failure of Bush. Failure of Cheney. Failure of the republicans.

Time for a change.

[pepperp1]

An Obama campaign that preaches multilateralism but intends to engage Syria is going to find itself crossing those same parties most prominent in their opposition to Bush in Iraq, including France, the U.N., and Sunni Arabs, along with many institutions within his own government. In short, Obama will have shown that he had learned too little from either Bush''s successes or errors in making Middle East policy.

In the immediate future, Syria, has no other strategy except to wait and hope that a President Obama is just itching to reach out to them, merely to prove that he is smarter than George Bush.

...

Not to forget this is Obama Politcal Patron Rezko''s home country....

[glenncinca-2009]

On day 1 of a B Obama presidency, maybe he should ask for a meeting with Osama B. Maybe he can get an apology from Bin Laden for ruining NY''s skyline, and a promise to never do it again. In return, Barack would probably apologize for America.

[glock4me]

Why would Osama say talking is not always the best course... that''s what he does.

That would be like Hugh Hefner''s girlfriends saying there''s more to life than being beautiful.

[bighorns2006]

Talking not always best strategy? Especially, when you do not know what you are talking about. Obama looked lost and confused yesterday.

[wogerwabbit]

Posted by IRLiberal at 06:03 PM

Well said, sir! No more excuses and indignant chest pounding, you republicons blew it! You''re outta here! Go sleep with the fishes.

[dmgenet]

Ah, the brilliance of the TNR editorial staff rise to their usual stench. Actually supporting the Bush foreign policy of his first 6 years in office which did nothing be make everything worse. Diplomacy is not always talking directly to the dictator. Its like playing poker. You want some of the action you got to at least ante up.

During the Cuban missile crisis in which the world almost had its first nuclear confrontation there were behind the scene people working furiously out of the crisis lime light. We were talking to the Soviet leaders publicly and privately. It worked. The Soviets backed down. That was ca hones people. Not this BS that neocon radical republicans love to spew.

[dmgenet]

In diplomacy one does not always give in to the Dictator by simply being at the table. It is a highly evolved poker game that often can bear fruit. Just because they are your enemy, at the time, doesn''t mean there aren''t some similar concerns. One needs the right partners (like China in the North Korea issue)and the right timing and enough bs to keep them off their game.

Charging in like a bull in a china shop as Bush and his blood hungry neocon crew like to do is pure foolishness. Especially when you or your relatives don''t have to do the charging.

[glenncinca-2009]

Here is a non-partisan, compromise approach to the Iraq/Iran problem when it comes to withdrawing our troops. Just move enough of our (and Iraq''s) troops to the borders with Iran and Syria to fortify them against any foreign incursion or invasion. No direct combat role, just patrol those borders really well. Remove US troops from the interior of Iraq... send a lot of our guys home in the process. Let the Iraqi''s have their civil war, for as long as it takes, but protected from foreign interference via secure borders. Once they have sorted out their differences and Iraq has built a strong cohesive central government and national military, then gradually remove the US troops from the borders. This plan satisfies McCain''s concerns regarding Iran invading Iraq, while mollifying Hillary and O''Bama - since our troops would be moved out of harm''s way and many would be sent home.

[kansas1946]

In the immediate future, Syria, has no other strategy except to wait and hope that a President Obama is just itching to reach out to them, merely to prove that he is smarter than George Bush.
***************************************************\

My two-year-old granddaughter is smarter than George Bush.

[wardoglrs]

Just follow the constitution and we wouldnt be in this war. But beliitle known to you is the Real players behind our wonderfull leaders. Our leaders are powerless because of the Neo Ellite that they fear and dont kid yourself you are owned. Just look at the world you live in and the way our economy is going in the ditch. Soon we will be begging the goverment for our life. Just read your history all kingdoms end in war through the fractured money system that robs the people of there freedom. Look at the real ID act at your doorstep. We kill more humans in America, Dont believe me think about Planed Parenthood hundreds of thousands of babys buched and dont forget about pollution air land & water.. And we are the new world ie new world order..We the the New Romans of the world preaching our religion or die disobeying. Our crimimal justice court is just that a criminal in a black robe while the saints wear white I see no differance any more we are owned. Our independence is not ours but theres, Our freedom is what they tell you is your freedom. Dont believe me?,
try not making tax payments on your house or your labor. Now go and do your duty as a brainwashed monkey
and obey or else.....

[doctor--o]

WarDogI.RS: Work on the punctuation.
Did anyone ever talk to you about run-on sentences?
Your lack of grammatical acuity makes you come across like a boob.
Is that what you are trying to do?

[ranger1948]

glenncinca
Your plan sounds very good. However i might point out one flaw. They have been fighting for centuries, they do not want peace, they don''t know what o do with peace, and when we leave they will still be trying to kill each other. I think we should let them do what they want.

[ranger1948]

glenncinca
I really thing we should sit down with the leaders of our enemies and have a heart to heart talk. If this doesn''t work to resolve our crisis, then drop a neutron bomb on them and repopulate with someone who is pro American, anyone who complains about our actions, give them a neutron ***

[bookout2]

Baracl Obama? this guy is dangerous.

[aakalan]

I''m going to pass on reading these idiotic comment sections in the future.

It''s no wonder that people think that Internet discourse is a bunch of loony-toons sharing psychoses.

Great, thoughtful discourse, like "obamination", global conspiracy theories,etc. just demonstrate that the critics may well be right.

Let me remind you: Columbia, Harvard Law, President, Law Review. Do you have a resume like that?

Obama is one of the smartest people to ever run for President of the United States. That alone is enough to get my vote, esp. after eight years of "good old boys" who have nearly destroyed this nation.

Bye to the "comments" sections. Neither my stomach nor my intellect can cope with this *** any longer.

[skyk-2009]

Baracl Obama? this guy is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bookout2 at 12:39 AM : Apr 10, 2008
+ report abuse

How so? We just lived through the WORST in our HISTORY... a guy SO STUPID he attacked the WRONG Country and you are afraid of a very intelligent man because he can speak the english language? LOL That says more about you than anything I know.

[chad55555]

We are in deep trouble in this country when a jerk like this thinks he knows how to fight a war when he has reached his position by the color of his skin. SPENDING YEARS IN COMBAT I KNOW BY NOT TALKING AND PRETENDING THEIR NOT THERE IS WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO SO THEY CAN GROW STRONGER. IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR THIS COUNTRY.
IN THIS COUNTRY WE PRETEND THE BLACKS AND MEXICANS DON''T DO MOST OF THE CRIME,IT"S NOT EVEN SAFE TO WALK THE STREETS IN ANY CITY. PRETENDING SOMEONE"S NOT THERE ONLY MAKES THINGS WORSE. LOOK AT THE GOOD OLD USA,HEADING TO BECOME A 3ed WORLD COUNTRY BECAUSE WE TURN OUR HEAD THE OTHER WAY AND PRETEND.

[jack3213]

VERY TRUE, CHAD, IF OBAMA WERE NOT BLACK WOULD HE STILL BE SO POPULAR? IF CLINTON WERE NOT WHITE WOULD SHE HAVE HALF AS MANY VOTES? ANSWERS: NO. WHY? NEITHER IS QUALIFIED AND IF THEY WEREN''T WHO THEY ARE THEY WOUL BE SERIOUSLLY MOCKED FOR BEING SO INEXPERIANCED.

[jack3213]

VERY TRUE, CHAD, IF OBAMA WERE NOT BLACK WOULD HE STILL BE SO POPULAR? IF CLINTON WERE NOT A WOMAN WOULD SHE HAVE HALF AS MANY VOTES? ANSWERS: NO. WHY? NEITHER IS QUALIFIED AND IF THEY WEREN''T WHO THEY ARE THEY WOUL BE SERIOUSLLY MOCKED FOR BEING SO INEXPERIANCED.

[joecoolswat]

Hey Skyk, The U.S. did attack the right countries. We destroyed the Taliban and terrorists in Afghanistan, and when Saddam Hussein did not abide by the surrender/cease fire agreements of the gulf-war-1, he and his sons were also destroyed. It shows you are a stupid bush-hating liberal who knows nothing about military conflicts. Your democrat colleagues fooled you into thinking there was no reason to attack Iraq. That was incorrect, they didn''t abide by the last agreements, then war began. The was is now won in Iraq, the surge worked perfectly. Who''s next ? anyone who threatens the US and does not listen.

[joecoolswat]

Oh, and secondly, McCain will be president, so Senator Barrack Hussein Obama can talk with vicious dictators all he wants from his Senate phone.

[myshiba]

Why is the U.S. still in Iraq?

[joecoolswat]

You are joking...right? Why are we still in Iraq? Because we have many military bases there, that allow us to launch attacks on any surrounding country that messes with us. Prior to the Iraq war, we had no bases except using Saudi Arabia to launch strikes. Now that we have many, many bases in Iraq, they all have to be manned and maintained. Secondly, as we continue to train the Iraqi military to take control over their own country requires troops. thirdly, Iran continues to send terrorists to Iraq in hopes to get America to leave, so they can base themselves there and plan another attack on the U.S. similar to 9/11. But we aren''t prepared to let that happen, so we will have troops in Iraq for a long time, many years. Winning a war doesn''t mean everyone comes home. Japan, South Korea and Berlin Germany are examples.

[rowdytexan2]

The fact is, Obama has absolutely no foreign policy experience, no proven legislative skills, barely 36 months in the US senate, and his Illinois senate seat was almost a total failure.

What international corporation in the world would put such a person in the driving seat? It''s insane!

On top of that his politics are corrupt, he lies like a rug, and has supported an Islamic extremist in Kenya.

Doesn''t any of this raise serious red flags to anybody?

[hungry1968]

Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 02:29 PM : Apr 10, 2008




I thought you''d be on here complaining about how he stole the idea of talking to your enemies from Hillary.

But that would be silly, since she supports the Bush diplomacy plan of talking to NO ONE.

[hungry1968]

"Weeks later, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others were killed in a massive car bomb explosion in downtown Beirut. The next day, Washington recalled its ambassador, a post that has been vacant ever since."




The diplomatic equivalent of holding your breath and pouting until you get your way.

[doctor--o]

Sure JoeCoolSwat:

A trillion here, a trillion there.

Just money, anyway we''ll just print more.

Heaven knows (I''m sure you do) we can''t waste it on things like the people of our country, or how about infrastructure, and on and on and on...

Oh, why should that be a problem... we can just print more.

Don''t forget to cut taxes too.

Why do we even need taxes? We''ll just print more.

Every day we are in that god-forsaken land is a victory to Osama Bin Laden.

What a bargain! Spend a few hundred thousand dollars; kill a few willing martyrs, and relentlessly deplete the wealth of your enemy all the while the US thinks it has the upper hand.

Brilliant!

I''m sure you can''t see how that is. I could explain it, but you wouldn''t even hear it, never mind listen.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

That''s you Joe, and every one of you who doesn''t think past the end of their gun.

Like you.

[xlib]

Why are we still in Iraq?? Well, we''re still in Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, we were in Morocco in until recently. Why, we''re all over the place.
Just how long did it take for things to cool down in Germany after the war???? HOw about Japan??
Good questions all.

[hungry1968]

Why are we still in Iraq?? Well, we''''re still in Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, we were in Morocco in until recently. Why, we''''re all over the place.
Just how long did it take for things to cool down in Germany after the war???? HOw about Japan??
Good questions all.

Posted by Xlib at 02:52 PM : Apr 10, 2008




Which of those countries that you just named, did we set up embassies and diplomatic relations with, while hostilities were still on going?

And after those bases were established in Germany and Japan, how many troops were killed by hostile people trying to force our military our of their land?

Which of those countries, Germany, Japan, or S Korea, viewed us ideologically as invaders, occupiers, and plunderers?

[joecoolswat]

Being from New York, how much of a financial impact do you think the attack on the world trade centers (and 6 other neighboring buildings) and attack on the pentagon have on our countries economy and infrastructure you speak about? While Clinton did nothing but let BinLaden go, while he did everything "for the children" here at home. Pre-emptive strikes on our enemy work well. No attacks since.. right? Keep living in your little world where all you care about is the cost of the operation. Doing nothing cost 3,000+ New Yorkers their lives.

[ajmarine1]

And after those bases were established in Germany and Japan, how many troops were killed by hostile people trying to force our military our of their land?

Posted by hungry1968 at 02:58 PM : Apr 10, 2008




Casualties after V-E Day

The exact numbers are hard to come by. I have read as high as 700. I don''t know for sure. It took 7 years to eliminate all Nazi sympathizers.


The final guerilla resistance was not stamped out until 1948. They sniped, they planted bombs, and one of their favorite tricks was to stretch a rope across a road at the right height so that people riding in an open jeep would catch it in the neck. This could result in a broken neck or outright decapitation. The occupying forces executed guerillas when they caught them, the British used beheadings, and even resorted to taking and executing hostages.
Here is recommended reading:


"The Last Nazis: SS Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in Europe, 1944-47" by Perry Biddiscombe; Stroud, Glouchestershire (Charleston, SC); Tempus Publishing, Ltd. 2000 ISBN: 0 7524 1793 2

It will thoroughly cover the topic of Allied Occupation Troops after V-E Day.

[ajmarine1]

During the occupation of Japan, incidents of violence were virtually unknown, Dower said. The source of grief for the Japanese was the death and destruction caused by nearly 15 years of war, whose termination, even if it meant defeat, they were eager to embrace.

During the occupation of Japan, incidents of violence were virtually unknown, Dower said. The source of grief for the Japanese was the death and destruction caused by nearly 15 years of war, whose termination, even if it meant defeat, they were eager to embrace.

"The hardship was extraordinary, as great or greater than Iraq," Dower said.

During the war, 54 Japanese cities had been bombed and Tokyo had been reduced nearly to rubble. Three million Japanese had been killed and thousands more died later of malnutrition. Until 1949 the economy was plagued by hyperinflation, and only the black market showed any sign of vitality. And yet during this terrible time, the society remained relatively stable and secure, so much so that by 1950 the United States was able to reduce its occupying force from 450,000 to 150,000.

According to Dower, the intensity and duration of suffering in Japan was an important reason the occupation went so well.

"The Japanese said, ''We were liberated from death.'' They were seizing the opportunity to start over, to create a new society."

[vmcneal2]

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Sun-Tzu
Chinese general & military strategist
400BC

[rowdytexan2]

But that would be silly, since she supports the Bush diplomacy plan of talking to NO ONE.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hungry1968 at 02:35 PM : Apr 10, 2008

She''ll talk to ''em! Or have Richard Holbrooke, the only man according to TIME magazine that can broker stability in the Middle East and get our soldiers home. She''s already got Holbrooke on her staff and ready to take off on day one!

What''s Obama got? Not a *** thing! He''ll still be twiddling his thumbs and waiting for visions of sugarplumbs to dance in his head.

[ioweign]

Why are we still in Iraq?? Well, we''''''''re still in Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, we were in Morocco in until recently. Why, we''''''''re all over the place.
Just how long did it take for things to cool down in Germany after the war???? HOw about Japan??
Good questions all.

Posted by Xlib at 02:52 PM : Apr 10, 2008




Which of those countries that you just named, did we set up embassies and diplomatic relations with, while hostilities were still on going?

And after those bases were established in Germany and Japan, how many troops were killed by hostile people trying to force our military our of their land?

Which of those countries, Germany, Japan, or S Korea, viewed us ideologically as invaders, occupiers, and plunderers?

Posted by hungry1968 at 02:58 PM : Apr 10, 2008

In the last month - how many air strikes were called in these "occupied" countries...

[ksh1022]

Hopefully there won''t be a President Obama. He is too inexperienced to have the job. Given the state of affairs in the world and our massive financial troubles at home this is not the time to for a junior Senator to be learning on the job. We need experience. Hillary brings experience and frankly, yes, her husband. Bill Clinton knows the players knows the game. Hillary is strong and tough. She has more tenacity than Obama more experience, she''s been tested politically by the Repubilicans. She''s survived. Obama isn''t ready for the job!

[hungry1968]

Veterans Department Creates Roadblocks to Voter Registration for Injured Vets



The VA Secretary says registering voters in VA facilities is a "partisan" distraction. On the same day the Pentagon''s commander in Iraq told the Senate that new troop withdrawals could not considered be for months, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James B. Peake told two Democratic senators that his department will not help injured veterans at VA facilities to register to vote before the 2008 election.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041008O.shtml



Apparently, they''re worried that these injured veterans might vote against the "values party".

[popstom1]

We are in Iraq right now we need to pull our people
out the USSR went broke in afghanistan and we are
trying to do both and we going broke
they say unempolyment is 5% but it is cloers to 10%
diesel is $4.00 milk is $4.00 to 4.50 bread Now $2.50
we are headed in to a depression we can not fight
3 fronts

[mistered9]

Obama runs his mouth like he has dierea. All that smooth talk goes in one ear and out the other.
I am pretty too, can I run for President? Were in big trouble with him or McCain. How dd we get in this mess???

[mistered9]

All this talk about it being bad to Quit the Iraq war. We quit two conflict and it worked out well even if we didn''t win. I think McCain is a war munger that knos less thaen Bush. We fought a world war and we can''t beat a Country a tenth of the size. What does that tell us?/

[xlib]

To hungry and the other frothing at the mouth rabid dems-in reference to my post regarding all of the bases we maintain years after a war. Listen, sometimes a question is just that-A QUESTION!!!!
For God''s sake people, this is supposed to be a discussion board not only a place to bad mouth and demean others. My points were all valid-why are we still there???
That was my question, only a question.
You people really need to get a life and, how about some rabies shots. You are all nuts.

[mbcsmith]

All this talk about it being bad to Quit the Iraq war. We quit two conflict and it worked out well even if we didn''''t win. I think McCain is a war munger that knos less thaen Bush. We fought a world war and we can''''t beat a Country a tenth of the size. What does that tell us?/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mistered9 at 07:53 AM : Apr 11, 2008


That you''re a moron.

[joecoolswat]

XLib,thanks for backing me up with facts. It was my post 2 pages back where I educated some stupid-liberals that it''s not the case that you win a war and everyone comes home. My main point was that we now have excellent Mid-East bases in Iraq now, and will be keeping large numbers of troops there for a long time to launch attacks on any foolish dictators or countries who mess with the U.S., giving Japan and South Korea as examples of troops staying in a country long after war is over. Pre-Emptive strikes..Hit them before we get hit. Doing nothing cost 3,000+ New Yorker''s their lives.

[bluestardad]

ITS BETTER TO TALK THAN SHOOT!

MOST OF THOSE WHO PROMOTE WAR HAVE NEVER SEEN ITS HORROR!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!